Wednesday round-up

Posted Wed, January 29th, 2014 8:28 am by Amy Howe

Reporting and commentary on Monday’s three opinions in argued cases continue. Writing for this blog, Cristina Tilley covers the decision in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, in which the Court held that airlines are stripped of their immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act only for statements that are materially false. Other coverage and analysis come from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal and W. Chris Harrison at the Ogletree Deakins blog. Sam Bagenstos breaks down the decision in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corporation, in which the Court held that the workers in this case were not entitled to compensation for donning and doffing their protective gear, for this blog; Archis Parasharami and Kevin Ranlett do the same at Mayer Brown’s Class Defense blog. Finally, at his Harmless Error blog, Luke Rioux analyzes the decision in Burrage v. United States, in which the Court limited the availability of enhanced sentences for drug dealers whose customers die or suffer serious injuries.

Other coverage of the Court focuses on the amicus briefs filed yesterday in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. Lyle Denniston reported on one such brief, which urges the Court to hold that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional, for this blog; elsewhere in the blogosphere, Marty Lederman (at Balkinization) uses the amicus briefs as a jumping-off point from which to discuss what he “consider[s] to be a more useful way of thinking about the question of whose religious exercise is potentially burdened, and how, in these cases.” And at Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro summarizes Cato’s brief in the case, which “argu[es] that the government can’t force people to pick and choose among their constitutionally protected individual liberties.”

Briefly:

In The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro reports on the Justices’ attendance at (or absence from) yesterday’s State of the Union address.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, served as counsel to the respondent in Air Wisconsin. However, I am no longer affiliated with the firm.]

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. ComerThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources' express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status.

Hernández v. Mesa(1) A Bivens remedy is not available when there are "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress," and the court recently clarified in Ziglar v. Abbasi what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation; the court of appeals should consider how the reasoning and analysis in Ziglar bear on the question whether the parents of a victim shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent may recover damages for his death; (2) It would be imprudent for the Supreme Court to decide Jesus Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case; and (3) with respect to Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment claim, because it is undisputed that the victim's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to the agent at the time of the shooting, the en banc court of appeals erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.